57 minutes ago, jon b said:

I’ll reserve judgment until I’ve actually tried the new sim , however to me as a “real’ pilot what matters the most is that the aircraft simply feels real.
It doesn’t matter to me so much that it might be mathematically unrealistic, just that it feels like a real aircraft, it’s all about the illusion.  Although it would be nice if things also tied up mathematically to a real aircraft but ultimately I’m not using the sim as an engineering platform.

According to Seb, they tested the new flight model in MSFS 2024 against real world aircraft and the new flight  model in MSFS 2024 approaches 95% accuracy against the real world data they collected, verus 80% accuracy in MSFS 2020. Now Seb didn't mention what aircraft they used to test against from the real world, or data and what parameters they were exactly testing against and measuring against. Maybe that information will become available in the SDK when MSFS 2024 is released. I assume they were at least using the 172 as one of the real airplanes they tested the data for, but perhaps we will know for sure once the SDK is out.

For now, I trust the feedback of real life 172 pilots and a few of them in this thread have already said they like the flight model of the 172 in MSFS 2024 and the "feel" of the flight model has improved for the 172 in MSFS 2024.

Perhaps when the SDK is released, we can do further analysis, especially if the data Asobo was measuring is available with the SDK.

Edited October 16, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

Personally, I have yet to see a company other than A2A Simulation, that achieved a result as good as they does with their planes, in terms of extracting themselves the data from real flight, and translating that into the Sim. Asobo with their infinite wealth and resource to do anything they could dream of, doesnt even come close in my opinion.

Doesn't mean I think A2A Is the best FlightModel for FlightSim ever, but the way they do it, by flying themselves the planes and capturing every detail that gets into their simulation, I think they are at a whole another level.

4 minutes ago, Alec said:

Asobo with their infinite wealth and resource to do anything they could dream of, doesnt even come close in my opinion.

I think that's to be expected.

A2A (and other aircraft devs) can focus on one aircraft at a time. They can go fully in depth on each with the expectation that they can charge up to or beyond the same price as the base MSFS sim costs.
Asobo on the other hand, has to release multiple aircraft, from gliders and bug smashers, all the way to supersonic jets to attract the widest audience. They also have to do so within the budget they have been allocated by MS.

Could the default aircraft be better? Sure.
However, many people think the ones in MSFS are the best we've ever seen as part of a base sim. I strongly agree with them on that.

31 minutes ago, Alec said:

Personally, I have yet to see a company other than A2A Simulation, that achieved a result as good as they does with their planes, in terms of extracting themselves the data from real flight, and translating that into the Sim. Asobo with their infinite wealth and resource to do anything they could dream of, doesnt even come close in my opinion.

Doesn't mean I think A2A Is the best FlightModel for FlightSim ever, but the way they do it, by flying themselves the planes and capturing every detail that gets into their simulation, I think they are at a whole another level.

No offense, but you just lost more credibility with this statement and now I am beginning to doubt your analysis because of this last statement (whereas before, I was open to the initial presentation of your data).

A2A can fine tune a flight model for one specific plane, whereas Asobo has to make a general flight model that has to cater to all assortment of planes with various shapes, some planes with multiple wings, etc.

The mission scope of each is vastly different. In fact, Aamir from Fenix acknowleged the scope of Asobo's flight model is way larger than A2A's very narrow scope of the Comanche.

Edit: Thanks to @lwt1971 for the link to Aamir's quote on the difference between A2A's mission scope versus Asobo's mission scope.

Edited October 16, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

33 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

I think that's to be expected.

A2A (and other aircraft devs) can focus on one aircraft at a time. They can go fully in depth on each with the expectation that they can charge up to or beyond the same price as the base MSFS sim costs.
Asobo on the other hand, has to release multiple aircraft, from gliders and bug smashers, all the way to supersonic jets to attract the widest audience. They also have to do so within the budget they have been allocated by MS.

Could the default aircraft be better? Sure.
However, many people think the ones in MSFS are the best we've ever seen as part of a base sim. I strongly agree with them on that.

Couldn't agree more.. and so does Aamir of Fenix below (it's always interesting when certain folks keep bringing up A2A as something to denigrate Asobo with). I'm just glad that the MSFS ecosystem, platform, and SDK allows for all sorts of aircraft to be developed as the dev chooses (ranging from default aircraft by Asobo/WT, to the likes of A2A, and everything/everyone inbetween). Some of the default aircraft were already great in MSFS 2020 (especially when considering not just FM but also systems/avionics/etc, i.e. Citation Longitude) and they look to be getting even better in 2024 especially in terms of FM and ground handling. I'm not going to complain. And will be very interesting to see what 3rd party aircraft devs do with the new flight dynamics and ground handling capabilities.

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/page/4/#comment-4990988

"This thread is hilarious. People complaining about a £59.99 piece of home entertainment software (MSFS) not having incredible globalised flight modelling when even £30m+ level-D sims, specific to type, built from real aircraft test data, don't feel like the real thing. 

A2A had to go external in places to build it to their standards, which is understandable, because they're brilliant and build a brilliant product. What I don't get is people taking that and spinning it into "Asobo sucks!", yeesh. We had to go external on our engines and a portion of our flight model too, in this next update. It doesn't mean Asobo sucks. It means we, as developers, have specific needs and requirements from our product that we want to see - and that we can go build it ourselves. I don't think anyone railing on Asobo understands what a monumental task it is to have an FDE that is just bang on perfect for every single type of aircraft out there - including helicopters, gliders, etc, out of the box by default, and globalised. Insanity. 

p.s if anyone manages to do the above, perfect globalised modelling, and it's capable of running on anything less than a super-computer in real time, you're probably sat on a few billion dollars in training contracts - forget the piddly consumer market 🙂"
 

Edited October 16, 20241 yr by lwt1971

This has ran it's course. If anyone care, if I ever make any further analysis on the final MSFS2024, I will be posting that on the Official MSFS2024 forums. 

Best wishes to all

I’m sure in my simming career I’ve flown Aircraft that felt absolutely fantastic to handle and felt like you were flying a real aircraft, and yet the actual flight performance figures bore no resemblance to the aircraft it was meant to be simulating. I can’t think of an example right now but I’m sure there’s been many.

likewise I’ve probably flown those that fly within 98% of the performance figures in the manual, and yet just feel unrealistic and wooden.

I suppose what I’m trying to say is sometimes an aircraft just has that special something that makes it feel real, I don’t care how they got there, CFD, performance look up, or something else just as long as it gets there.

An example of something not being quite right that’s just come to me is the JF 146 in P3D, it flew great and I enjoyed flying it as it felt believable …except on approach it came in nose up, which the real 146 never did, it had a noticeable nose down attitude. Probably not a great example as the approach attitude ruined the whole experience for me ultimately.

Personally I’ve every confidence the 2024 flight model will be great, with the people they’ve hired to work on it. Possibly it won’t be quite there straight away but I’m sure with continuous updates and refinement it’ll get there.

For maybe the first time since the 1990’s because there was no choice back then, I’m looking forward to flying the default aircraft in a sim.

 

Edited October 16, 20241 yr by jon b

34 minutes ago, Alec said:

This has ran it's course. If anyone care, if I ever make any further analysis on the final MSFS2024, I will be posting that on the Official MSFS2024 forums. 

Best wishes to all

I'm looking forward to it, this has been an interesting thread. Thanks.

1 hour ago, F737MAX said:

Asobo on the other hand, has to release multiple aircraft, from gliders and bug smashers, all the way to supersonic jets to attract the widest audience.

Wow. I didn't know they HAD to do that. I thought they just CHOSE to do that. 

A2A could also have chosen to release 10 fairly well made addons in the last 4 years and made a lot of money on the Marketplace.. But they only chose to make one. 

 

6 hours ago, jcomm said:

You don't have to yank the controls like mad on MSFS... Weather effects an the way they impact the flight dynamics do it for you... 

Look at any GA, Airliner, ... , in MSFS 2020 being hit by even marginal turbulence and / or variable wind... For me that really reduces the amount of pleasure I could get from the sim, given it's surely many "pluses"...

As a VFR only simmer I don't fly in weather that would toss my plane around. And I'm not interested in airliners at all. I do understand and appreciate your point though.

19 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Wow. I didn't know they HAD to do that. I thought they just CHOSE to do that. 

No. Had to.
I don't think MSFS2020 would have been nearly as successful if Asobo had delivered it as Microsoft XCub Simulator or Microsoft Boeing 747-8i Simulator.

 

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

"This thread is hilarious. People complaining about a £59.99 piece of home entertainment software (MSFS) not having incredible globalised flight modelling when even £30m+ level-D sims, specific to type, built from real aircraft test data, don't feel like the real thing. 

Aamir hitting the nail on the head there.

Yes, there's some elements to the base flight model I'd want to see changed, particularly around turbulence.
That said, making an environment that works simultaneously for various different types of aircraft is difficult. So far, it's the sim that has come closest and for £29,999,940.01 less than a Level-D sim.

36 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

A2A could also have chosen to release 10 fairly well made addons in the last 4 years and made a lot of money on the Marketplace.. But they only chose to make one. 

 

A wise choice by Asobo in my opinion. And I'm grateful for it. Variety is the spice of life (Unfortunately for readers, I could not think of any other cliche to post).

I always fly the planes that I like the most, not the ones that I think are the best. That goes for other things. Ulysses by James Joyce is one of the very best novels ever created. I am never going to read it. I don't like it.

29 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

I don't think MSFS2020 would have been nearly as successful if Asobo had delivered it as Microsoft XCub Simulator or Microsoft Boeing 747-8i Simulator.

 

If they'd made it "Airline World Airbus vs Boeing" and released one great A and one great 7 I think it still would be huge. You pick your plane and have to make more profit than the opposition by flying safely and economical. 

Or just do spins and loops on console if you wish! 

17 minutes ago, Fielder said:

I always fly the planes that I like the most, not the ones that I think are the bes

The planes I like the most are the ones that ARE the best. I applaud and respect quality and excellence. I'll fly any historical or current plane if it's true to life (as much as a sim plane could be). 

The problem comes when the sim is better than the planes or vice versa. I own several similar planes in both msfs and p3d /fsx. The fact is that I'll fly a simpler plane in a better flight simulation than the better plane in the less realistic sim. I'm talking physics here not graphics. 

At the major military airport near me, I run to the planes I love on open house day. Not to the ones that are the best.